Madras High Court
V.Jayamani vs The Collector on 25 March, 2022
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.3.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.182 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1275 of 2022
1.V.Jayamani
2.R.Somasundaram
R.Selvam (deceased)
3.R.Jayalakshmi
4.G.Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi
5.R.Murugan
6.Santhi
7.Jayanthi
8.Vasanthi
(Appellants 6 to 8 impleaded as
legal representatives of deceased
R.Selvam vide Court order in CMP
No.513 of 2022 made in WA.SR.No
100747 of 2021 (PUJ & SSKJ) .. Appellants
dated 21.1.2022
vs
1.The Collector,
Cuddalore District – 607 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore.
____________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai – 600 035.
4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative
Officer, Villupuram Housing Board H1
Division, Maharajapuram East Pandi
Salai, Villupuram – 605 602. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 24.08.2021 in W.P.No.19840 of 2016.
For Appellants : Mr.Sundar Narayan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
Government Pleader
Assisted by Mr.KMD Muhilan
Government Advocate
-for R1 and R2
Dr.R.Gowri
Standing Counsel
-for R3 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed this Writ Appeal
challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2021, whereby the writ
petition preferred by them for re-computation of compensation on
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs.15/- per Sq.ft was not
accepted.
2.1. The brief facts relevant for consideration are as follows:
The lands belonging to one Rajangam Padayatchi along with other
lands were processed for acquisition. On completion of the process,
an Award was passed on 03.08.1988 in Award No.7 of 1988. The
lands to the extent of 65,889 sq. ft. belonging to the Rajangam
Padayatchi were acquired by calculating the compensation at the
rate of Rs.3/- per sq. ft. The determination of the amount was
protested by the other land owners by seeking reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of
1894") in L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Court,
Cuddalore. By the judgment dated 25.9.1991, the Subordinate
Judge, Cuddalore determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.15/- per sq. ft. in all petitions, except in L.A.O.P.No.32 of 1990
where compensation of Rs.11/- per sq. ft. was fixed.
2.2. Since the reference of Rajangam Padayatchi had been
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
omitted, on 10.12.1991, he submitted a petition before the Sub-
Collector, Cuddalore, by citing the judgment passed in
L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990 and prayed for compensation on par
with the quantum of compensation fixed in the said cases. Since no
action was taken on the said petition, he again submitted a petition
under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 to the Collector of South
Arcot on 14.12.1991 requesting to re-determine the compensation
payable to him for the lands on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded in L.A.O.P.Nos.18 to 32 of 1990, dated
25.09.1991.
2.3. Since no action was taken, on 4.5.1992, Rajangam
Padayatchi submitted another petition under Section 28-A of the Act
of 1894 seeking to hold an enquiry with regard to the compensation
payable to him. Thereafter, Rajangam Padayatchi filed two writ
petitions, being W.P.Nos.3980 of 1993 and 6398 of 1993, to quash
the order dated 28.6.1992 and to direct the District Collector to re-
determine the compensation payable to him in respect of the lands
acquired, inasmuch as by the said order dated 28.6.1992, he was
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
informed that due to pendency of proceedings before this court, the
claim cannot be considered.
2.4. By the order dated 2.2.2000, the learned Single Judge of
this Court allowed the writ petitions by directing the first respondent
therein to take up the applications dated 14.12.1991 and 4.5.1992
alleged to have been filed by Rajangam Padayatchi and dispose of
the same within a period of twelve weeks with a further direction
that in case, there are proceedings pending in the High Court in
respect of the said LAOP, it is open to Rajangam Padayatchi to
implead himself as a party to make the applications under Section
28(A) of the Act for determination of enhanced compensation.
2.5. While so, Rajangam Padayatchi died on 10.6.2002,
leaving behind his wife Sakunthala and the appellants as his legal
heirs and Sakunthala died on 11.12.2009.
2.6. On 30.04.2003, the Appeal Suits, being A.S.Nos.98, 311
of 1994, 564 of 1997 and 390 of 2000, preferred by the Revenue
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
Divisional Officer, Cuddalore against the order dated 25.9.1991
passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.24, 26, 29 and 32 of 1990 were partly
allowed thereby modifying the order of the Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore in L.A.O.P.Nos.24, 26, 29 and 32 of 1990 that the land
owners will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq.
ft. as on date of Section 4(1) notification with solatium at 30%,
interest on solatium and an additional compensation under Section
23(1-A) of the Act.
2.7. Thereafter, based on the judgment passed in A.S.No.311
of 1994, dated 30.04.2003 as well as the report of the Sub-
Collector, Cuddalore, the District Collector, Cuddalore issued an
order dated 30.04.2013 computing the compensation payable to the
appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased Rajanga Padayatchi
at Rs.25,52,709/-, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,00,875/- paid
to Rajangam Padayatchi pursuant to the Award dated 3.8.1988.
2.8. On 15.5.2013, the appellants submitted a representation
to the District Collector, Cuddalore, requesting to enhance the rate
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
from Rs.6/- to Rs.15/- per sq. ft. for the lands acquired.
2.9. On 18.11.2013, the Executive Engineer-cum-
Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram
Housing Board Division sent a cheque for Rs.15,12,971/-, after
deducting the TDS of Rs.1,73,731/-, to the Sub-Collector, Cuddalore
for onward payment to the legal heirs of the land owner Rajanga
Padayatchi. Aggrieved by the said communication dated
18.11.2013, the appellants have submitted a representation dated
12.2.2014 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore to re-
determine the rate at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. by invoking Section 28-A of
the Act of 1894. On 11.5.2015, the appellants have also submitted
representation to the District Collector, Cuddalore stating that they
have received the amount of Rs.15,12,971/- under protest and
accordingly sought the enhanced compensation of Rs.65,77,736/-
as on 31.03.2015. Again on 20.8.2015, the appellants have
submitted another representation to the District Collector, Cuddalore
and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddalore to re-compute and
disburse the compensation amount as prayed for in the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
representation dated 11.05.2015 under Section 28-A of the Act of
1894.
2.10. Challenging the communication dated 18.11.2013, the
appellants have filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same
and to direct the respondents to re-compute the compensation
payable to them in respect of the land acquired at the rate of
Rs.15/- per sq. ft.; re-fix the solatium and additional market value
and interest on the compensation or in the alternative re-compute
and disburse compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. Resisting the writ petition, the Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer of the Villupuram Housing Board Division filed
counter, inter alia, stating that on the basis of the judgment passed
in A.S.No.311 of 1994, the appellants have made a representation
to the District Collector under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 and
the District Collector, by fixing the rate at Rs.6/- per sq. ft., passed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
an Award computing the compensation at Rs.25,52,709/- in respect
of the lands in S.No.2220/1 etc. It is stated that since the lands in
T.S.Nos.2220/1, 2330 (part) and 2334/1A are pits due to removal
of earth for brick kilns, the Public Works Department has estimated
a sum of Rs.1,74,420/- for filling up the pits in the above said
lands. A sum of Rs.92,130/- was deducted towards reclamation
charges in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. The
said aspect was not considered by the District Collector and the
Revenue Divisional Officer. However, the amount of Rs.25,52,709/-
was calculated and forwarded to the fourth respondent for
disbursement of the amount. According to the fourth respondent,
the appellants are not entitled to any further claim and the writ
petition is not maintainable in view of the remedy available under
Section 28A(3) of the Act of 1894.
5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the above, while
allowing interest at the rate of 15% on the sum of Rs.8,66,007/-
from 18.11.2013 to 06.06.2018 and directing the respondents to
pay the said sum within a period of four weeks from the date of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
receipt of that order, negatived the prayer of the appellants/writ
petitioners to re-fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per
sq.ft. Aggrieved by the said order, this present appeal is filed,
claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.15 per
sq.ft.
6. The claim of the appellants is not tenable. Once the
reference has been made at the instance of the other land owners
on the similar acquisition and on the said reference the question of
enhancement has been gone into by the Reference Court and
thereafter by this Court on an appeal and the compensation amount
was enhanced from Rs.3 per sq.ft, to Rs.6 per sq.ft, then the
appellants, who are legal heirs of the deceased original owner, are
not entitled to claim a further enhancement as per Section 28A of
the Act of 1894, as the benefit under Section 28A of the said Act is
not available to them. This will be clear on a plain reading of
Section 28A of the Act of 1894, which is extracted hereunder :-
“28A. Re-determination of the amount of
compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.-
(1) where in an award under this part, the court allows
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess
of the amount awarded by the collector under section
11, the persons interested in all the other land covered
by the same notification under section 4, sub-section
(1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the
Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not
made an application to the Collector under section 18,
by written application to the Collector within three
months from the date of the award of the Court
require that the amount of compensation payable to
them may be re-determined on the basis of the
amount of compensation awarded by the court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months
within which an application to the Collector shall be
made under this sub-section, the day on which the
award was pronounced and the time requisite for
obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.”
7. Therefore, once the appellants have claimed parity and
availed the benefit under Section 28-A, there is no question of again
claiming the benefit for the second time, that too in the year 2013,
after a lapse of several years.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
8. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to cause
interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Rather, we find additional reasons, as stated above, for the
dismissal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.1275 of
2022 is also dismissed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (D.B.C.J.)
25.3.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
To:
1.The Collector,
Cuddalore District – 607 001.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore.
3.The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai – 600 035.
4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative
Officer, Villupuram Housing Board H1
Division, Maharajapuram East Pandi
Salai, Villupuram – 605 602.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No. 182 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, CJ
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J
KST
W.A.No.182 of 2022
25.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
